The Kerala High Court issued notice to Harishkumar, who is arrayed as the 9th accused in the crime registered pursuant to the attack on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials following a raid at the residence of Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter on May 27.

Justice C.S. Dias was considering the plea moved by the State seeking to cancel the bail granted to Harishkumar by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

"I cannot unilaterally cancel bail without hearing him. He is already on bail. I'll issue notice," Justice Dias orally observed and ordered notice to Harishkumar while granting him time to file a counter, if any.

The prosecution allegation is that around 300 persons formed a crowd near ex-CM and Opposition Leader and attacked the officials who conducted the search.

The Court, however, dispensed with notice to Dr. T. Geenakumary, who was the public prosecutor before the District Court, arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the present plea. The State has alleged that Geenakumary had made wrong submission before the District Court, which was the reason for granting bail to Harishkumar.

When the matter came up today, Justice Dias orally questioned whether the prosecution had sought for police custody while Harishkumar was in judicial custody:

"He was in custody for 27 days. What were you doing?...Did you seek police custody in the 27 days he was in judicial custody?"

The Director General of Prosecution (DGP) T. Asaf Ali pointed out that out of the 300 persons who were involved in the attack, only 25 were arrested by the police and their mobile phones were seized for the purpose of forensic examination. He submitted that CRPF as well as police personnel were also injured in the armed attack.

He further submitted that Harishkumar's phone was also seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for a report but it is yet to be received. He added that police custody would be fruitful only after receiving the FSL report.

The DGP also argued that the investigation is still in the initial stage and it is yet to be determined who instigated the attacked. It was submitted that the larger conspiracy behind the unnatural assembly was yet to be investigated.

The DGP submitted that the bail order itself is vitiated because of the wrong submission made by the prosecutor therein. However, the Court refused to accept the same.

"That you cannot say. Why is the Public Prosecutor appointed here? To assist the court. Then it is my discretion whether to accept...The prosecution's prosecutor. Suppose my public prosecutor says something, I will hear what he says but I will decide the case as per my discretion...I am only on the merits of the order. I only say if the public prosecutor commit a wrong or misled the court by making a wrong submission from what you had instructed her, initiate proceedings against her...I have no doubt about the seriousness of the matter. But then, how do I consider a bail application? I have to look at the role of each accused. What the role of the 9th accused is my concern. I'm not concerned about the concession made by the public prosecutor. Suppose my public prosecutor stands here and says in a 302 matter that bail can be granted, will I grant bail? I will not grant bail," Justice Dias orally remarked.

The Court further added that it would consider the merits of the order and whether it suffered from any illegality. It inquired regarding the overt act alleged against Harishkumar. It also orally said that the offence would not amount to an 'organised crime':

"Sections 110 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 111 (Organised Crime) would not be attracted. Organised crime, you cannot say....What is the offence alleged against them?....The offences alleged are...109 (Attempt to Murder) is the most grievous offence. PDPP (Prevention of Damage to Public Property) Act is also there...Who is the person who suffered grievous hurt?...Were they hospitalised? How many days? Where are the treatment records?"

The DGP replied that Harishkumar was identified to have played an active role with the help of videos and other digital records.

The Court then issued notice and posted the case to July 20.

Case No: Crl.MC 5345/2026

Case Title: State of Kerala and Anr. v. Harishkumar and Anr.